CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
JUNE 19, 2002
MINUTES

PRESENT:  Francis Marella, Chairperson
                    Dean J. Reynolds, Vice-Chairperson
                    Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
                    Peter M. Catalano
                    Michael Nickerson
                    Frank Poma

ABSENT:    Denise C. Trombley (Excused)

STAFF:        Irene F. Sheridan, Community Planner II
                    DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Also in attendance was Carlo Santia, Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development. Mr. Marella explained the parameters under which the Board of Appeals can act and how the public hearing will be conducted.

Mr. Marella stated he would propose to make the following changes to tonight’s agenda:

Move Item #10 (BP Connect Gas Station) to immediately follow Item #1.

Move Item #9 (Lowe’s Home Improvement) to immediately follow Item #4.

Mr. Marella also informed that a letter was received from the petitioner of Item #1 (Atlantis Townhomes) requesting the matter be tabled; however, he indicated that this will be read into the record and the Board can take the action they wish at that time.

Mr. Catalano requested the addition of Item #10A – Discussion on Development at the Northwest Corner of Metropolitan Parkway and Groesbeck (Parkway Beverage).

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, to approve the agenda with the amendments proposed by Mr. Marella and Mr. Catalano. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were two replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question. He read the letters from James P. Babcock, 21610 Eleven Mile Road, Suite One, St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48081, dated May 31, 2002 and from Anthony J. Pype and Gary C. Kukuk, 16933 Canal Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038 dated June 12, 2002.

Mr. Nickerson noted that there was a request by the petitioner to table further consideration of this matter. He expressed opposition to the variance request and tabling the matter for another month.

Mr. Santia noted that he had a conversation with the petitioner and, since it appeared the site development plan needed a lot of revisions, he suggested the petitioner meet with the Planning Department to see if they can come up with a more manageable plan. Mr. Santia admitted that the variances are extreme, and since they are going to come in to possibly re-design the plan, that is why they are requesting the matter be tabled.

Mr. Campbell stated that he would prefer to table the matter rather than deny it because the petitioner recognizes the extreme requests and is attempting to meet with the Planning Department to see if the site development plan can be reconfigured so as not to need as many variances. He apologized for the inconvenience of the neighbors who are present, some for the second time, but felt this would be a courtesy to the petitioner, who is willing to scale back. He replied to inquiry that he would be willing to table the matter for sixty (60) days.

Mr. Nickerson disagreed with Mr. Campbell and was opposed to both tabling the matter or granting the variances requested. He stated he was on the Planning Commission when this property was rezoned, and at that time, he indicated the petitioner appeared to understand that there were certain requirements that had to be met. He suggested both the request to table and the request for variances be denied.

Mr. Reynolds agreed with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Nickerson.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5632 and application from World Development, 32680 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334, as represented by Keith Phillips, Phillips Design, 9049 Riverside Drive, Brighton, Michigan 48116, and Jerry Seay, 16931 19 Mile Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1264.02-(f), RMH Multiple-Family Residential (High-Density) District: Required Conditions and Chapter 1292.01-j, Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Footnotes to Chart and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(10) & (11), Off-Street Parking and Loading: Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning 3.0 acres of land fronting the east line of Garfield Road, north of Canal Road (Section 8), that request for variance to permit construction of a condominium development (proposed Atlantis Townhomes) in the RMH Multiple-Family Residential (High-Density) District with: 1) Land area of 130,680 square feet being 6,120 square feet less than the minimum required land area of 136,800 square feet; and with 144 rooms being twelve (12) rooms in excess of the maximum permitted 132 rooms; 2) Front yard setback from Garfield Road of twenty (20) feet being thirty (30) feet less than the required fifty (50) feet and off-street parking within the setback, which is not allowed; 3) A one-way service drive having a width of seventeen (17) feet, which is not allowed; and 4) Distance of ten (10) feet between parking area and buildings being five (5) feet less than the required distance of fifteen (15) feet, be denied by reason that there is no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship; and further, to deny the request to table this matter. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Reynolds, Catalano, Poma, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – Trombley. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Jim Daniel, representing Lewandowski Engineers, 234 North Erie, Toledo, Ohio 43624, explained that they redesigned the site and have eliminated the need for all of the variances with the exception of the canopy setback and the trees being less than the minimum required. He emphasized that they have met the ordinance requirements with regard to the distance between their building and the building to the west. He pointed out that, in their landscape plan, they have included four (4) Norway Maples, which he understands are favored trees in the Township; however, he noted that because of the configuration of the site, they would not be able to fit in all of the trees required. He felt more trees would result in them being overcrowded as they grow, and he requested consideration of a variance on the number of trees.

Mr. Campbell stated that he is in favor of the variances as requested. He pointed out that they are keeping a number of fairly mature trees and he felt the landscaping plan is attractive. He noted they have a strange situation with Lester Street not being a public right-of-way and he inquired as to whether they should be considering a variance for the canopy setback along Lester at this time in the event that Lester becomes a public right-of-way in the future.

Ms. Sheridan responded that this Board could grant a setback variance for the canopy from Lester. She noted that if they did not and Lester becomes a public right-of-way in the future, the subject site would be "grand-fathered" because it was not a public right-of-way at the time of development.

Mr. Nickerson stated he is in support of the variance request because the petitioner has been willing to work with the Township in a timely manner.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File # 5623 and application from Roy D. Blessing, BP Products North America, 4850 East 49^th Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44125, as represented by James H. Daniel, Lewandowski Engineers, 234 North Erie Street, Toledo, Ohio 43634, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-(m), Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and Footnotes: Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements in the B-3 General Business District and Chapter 1298.02-(a)-(23)-C; Supplementary Regulations; Uses Requiring Special Approval ; Procedure, concerning Parts of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Meadowland Subdivision (Section 27), generally located at the southwest corner of Gratiot Avenue and South Nunneley at 36843 South Gratiot Avenue, that variance be granted to permit construction of a gasoline station with a convenience store (proposed BP Gas Station, fka Amoco Gas Station and Our Place Café) in the B-3 General Business District with: 1) Six (6) trees within the 25-foot front yard setback from Gratiot Avenue being five (5) trees fewer than the required eleven (11) trees; 2) Five (5) trees within the 25-foot front yard setback from Lester Street being two (2) trees fewer than the required seven (7) trees; and 3) Canopy setback from both the Nunneley Road and Lester right-of-ways of 38.5 feet, being 1.5 feet less than the minimum required forty (40) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on practical difficulty that the number of trees required is offset by the number of existing mature trees on the site; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Poma, Reynolds, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Trombley. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were several replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Timothy Patrick, 15811 Touraine Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that he is petitioning for a variance because he would like room to store his jet skis, dune buggy, and vehicles under one roof without building a shed.

Patrick Mullen, 15803 Touraine Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, abutting property owner, inquired as to whether his neighbor will be doing the construction and the anticipated time frame for completion. He also inquired as to whether there are any similar structures in this subdivision that would be consistent with the variance being requested.

Mr. Campbell acknowledged that he also lives in this subdivision, and he replied to inquiry that to his recollection, in the last eight years there has never been a variance granted in this subdivision for an oversize garage.

Mr. Mullen inquired as to who the contractor is.

Mr. Patrick replied that he will be doing the work. He replied to further inquiry that he is not licensed.

Mr. Mullen inquired as to whether there are any parameters set by the Township to dictate the time frame for completion of such a project.

Ms. Sheridan replied that once a permit is issued, they have one year to commence construction; however, she was not aware of a required completion date.

Mr. Mullen inquired as to how the existing concrete will be removed. He also expressed concern that the pitch of the proposed roof is much steeper and the water run-off will end up on his property. He noted that the existing structure does not have gutters or downspouts and he wanted to ensure that proper building codes are followed.

Mr. Patrick responded that he could put gutters on the structure. He replied to inquiry that the garage door will measure 16 feet by 8 feet. He assured that he intends to complete the proposed project within a three-month period. He anticipates starting the project in mid-July, with completion by Fall.

Mr. Mullen inquired as to how the debris will be taken away.

Mr. Marella explained that some of these questions are out of the realm of the Board of Appeals jurisdiction.

Ms. Sheridan advised that these matters would be monitored by the Building Department.

Mr. Mullen stressed that he is opposed to the variance request.

Mr. Campbell stated that when people want to store their belongings in an accessory structure, the Township generally looks at it as a plus because the items are no longer in view. He added that variances to permit larger accessory structures have generally been granted to petitioners with large lots because of their having to store additional lawn equipment and other items that are required to maintain a large parcel of land. He could not recall that this Board ever granted a variance for an oversize garage on a lot this small. He informed that the typical lot in the R-5 District is 60 feet by 120 feet, although the subject property is slightly larger. He stressed that there is an impact on the visual appearance for the neighbors and for this reason, he is opposed to granting the variance.

Mr. Catalano felt that we live in an era of three-car garages, and the Township will be faced with more of this, even on smaller lots. He stated, however, that this is a 60-foot lot, which is very small for such a large structure, and he agreed with Mr. Campbell’s sentiment.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Poma, with reference to File #5641 and application from Timothy Patrick, 15811 Touraine Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.01-(1), Supplementary Regulations: Accessory Structures (Including Garages), concerning Lot 47, Smokler Clinton Subdivision #1 (Section 7), generally located fronting the north line of Touraine Court, west of Cimarron at 15811 Touraine Court, that request for variance to permit construction of a detached accessory structure for a 1,500 square-foot single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with floor area of 900 square feet, being 150 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted floor area of 750 square feet, be denied due to the small size of the lots in the subdivision and insufficient practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship being presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Poma, Catalano, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Trombley. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Dennis Nault, 17024 Penrod, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that he has an existing one-car garage but has eight vehicles. He noted that he has some classic vehicles in his yard and wants to put everything under one roof in an effort to clean up the yard.

Mr. Marella observed that the petitioner’s lot is very large, with a 100-foot width and in excess of a 500-foot depth. He also noted that in the subject subdivision, there are accessory structures equal to, or larger, than the proposed structure.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to whether the petitioner was planning on using the structure for any type of business or car repair purposes.

Mr. Nault assured that he would like the accessory structure for storage purposes and has no intent on using it for business purposes.

Mr. Campbell indicated that the square footage calculation of the proposed structure appears to be based on the footprint of the building. He inquired as to whether the second floor of the structure should be included in the square footage calculation.

Ms. Sheridan replied that she is not sure it would constitute a second story. She stated that the case that came to mind was a proposed oversized accessory structure located in the Colman/Gratiot vicinity. She added that if they are to take the second story into consideration, she did not receive a floor plan and inquired as to the purpose for the second story.

Mr. Nault replied that since his house does not have a basement, they would like to be able to use the second story of the accessory structure for a storage area and playroom for their children.

Mr. Nickerson stated that he was aware of someone who had a pull=down ladder in their accessory structure to access the storage area. He inquired as to whether this would be considered a two-story structure.

Mr. Campbell recalled that this Board has granted a large number of variances in this neighborhood for accessory structure because it is a neighborhood comprised of very large lots. He commented that many people with larger lots have additional lawn equipment, snow blowers, etc. to maintain that lot. He stated he is bothered by the fact that they are entering into a new area with a height variance request for an accessory structure. He recalled that the previous variance requests for the size of the accessory structure did not include a request to exceed the maximum permitted height. Mr. Campbell noted that there was no floor plan submitted to indicate that the additional height would be used for anything other than storage. He concluded that he has no objection to the variance request for square footage, but does have a problem with the requested height variance.

Mr. Neault clarified that according to the plans he purchased, the architect referred to the second story as a "loft".

Patti Neault, same address, pointed out that their neighbor has a structure taller than their proposed structure. She assured that they are not exceeding any higher than what has already been permitted in the neighborhood.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the rules to determine minimum square footage are completely different when the garage is attached to the house.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5642 and application from Dennis and Patricia Neault, 17024 Penrod, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.01-(f) & (i), Supplementary Regulations: Accessory Structures (Including Garages), concerning Lot 86, Moravian Garfield Subdivision #1 (Section 29), generally located fronting the south line of Penrod, east of Garfield Road at 17024 Penrod, that variance be granted to permit construction of a detached accessory structure (garage) for a single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with: 1) Two stories, being one story in excess of the maximum permitted one story; 2) Height of 19 feet 5 inches, being 5 feet 5 inches in excess of the maximum permitted height of 14 feet; and 3) Floor area of 1,192 square feet, being 139 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted floor area of 1,053 square feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the requested variance for this lot, which is excessive in size, conforms to the environment of the neighborhood, and allows everything to be stored under one roof; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon the petitioner’s agreement that the second story of the structure is not to be used for living space but only for storage; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Reynolds, Nickerson, Poma, Catalano, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – Trombley. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Eric Lord, Giffels-Webster Engineers, Inc., 2871 Bond Street, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309-3515, explained that Lowe’s was going to share a common wall with the medical center and Laser’s Edge; however, a footing was discovered under that shared wall that will make it difficult to share the wall without worrying about differential settlement. As a result, they will have to relocate a transformer and separate the buildings. They have discussed this with the Building Department, who has no objection, although specific fire codes will have to be met. Mr. Lord noted their building will be situated closer to 15 Mile Road than originally planned, and the driveway will encroach into the required setback.

Mr. Campbell could understand the need for the separation of the buildings and inquired as to whether the area between the buildings will be paved.

Mr. Lord replied that it will be paved.

Mr. Campbell noted that the building maintains the same angle as the road and they need an approximate 10 foot variance. He stated he compared this site with the other Lowe’s site in the Township, located south of Hall Road and east of Hayes Road, and he observed that the proposed building is approximately 12,000 square feet larger. He inquired as to why Lowe’s is proposing a larger store and he felt if they matched the same footprint as their other facility, they may not need the variance.

Mr. Lord replied that since the time their Hall and Hayes facility was constructed, Lowe’s has revised their prototype to meet a new vision. He acknowledged that some of the existing stores have to be retrofit for certain situations.

Mr. Campbell could not believe that Lowe’s would be able to acquire only lots that would accommodate 600-foot buildings.

Mr. Lord noted that they do their computations internally to determine whether a parcel will meet their requirements.

Mr. Campbell stated he had no objection to the requested 6-foot setback from an existing building; however, he disagreed with the variance request from 15 Mile Road. He felt they are creating a "pinch point" for traffic flow and he felt there are alternatives to this variance.

Mr. Lord disagreed and pointed out that the proposed maneuvering lane is large enough to support a fire truck. He stressed that Lowe’s carefully studied this situation.

Mr. Campbell felt it is important for the Township to maintain minimum lane width and maneuvering lanes.

Mr. Nickerson stated that he had no objection to the variance requests and he did not feel the Township should force Lowe’s to build anything less than their prototype store. He noted that they have matched the angle of their store with the angle of the road, and he added that is difficult. He felt the proposed development will be a very good asset to Clinton Township.

Mr. Catalano highly complimented Lowe’s for developing at this location and rejuvenating the area. He felt this Board should be "bending over backwards" to help them.

Mr. Marella felt that the front yard setback and the north side yard setback are not going to create too much of a problem and he was happy to see Lowe’s is developing one of their stores at this location.

Mr. Poma agreed with Mr. Catalano and felt Lowe’s should be welcomed into this area.

Mr. Campbell noted that he has worked in the retail business and assured that he is also pleased with the development of Lowe’s in this area; however, he noted that although the company has a prototype layout for their facilities, they also have variations. He felt that this Board is not hurting the petitioner by denying the front yard setback variance request but would be doing a disservice to them by approving a variance that could create difficulties in the future. He noted it is important to insure a safe traffic flow on the site.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5645 and application from Evan Vlaeminck, Lowes Companies, 1952 McDowell Road, Naperville, Illinois 60563, as represented by Eric Lord, Giffels-Webster Engineers, Inc., 2871 Bond Street, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309-3515, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01 & 1292.01-n; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements in the B-1 Neighborhood Business District, concerning 12.88 acres of land located at the northwest corner of 15 Mile Road and Gratiot Avenue (Section 27), that variance to permit construction of a freestanding retail home improvement center (Lowe’s) in the B-2 Community Business District with: 1) Front yard setback from 15 Mile Road of fifteen (15) feet being ten (10) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; and 2) North side yard setback of six (6) feet from an existing building being fourteen (14) feet less than the minimum required distance of twenty (20) feet between buildings; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty being the unusual shape of the lot and the large size of the store; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickeron, Reynolds, Poma, Catalano, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – Trombley. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Mr. Marella inquired as to why the petitioner feels all of the proposed signs are necessary.

Mr. Lord replied that he was not involved in the previous variance request for additional signs that was denied by this Board; however, he pointed out that the proposed signs are directional signs. He emphasized that with the large footprint of the store and in order to maintain safety in the parking lot, it is necessary for Lowe’s to provide directional signs. He explained that this is a corner lot and they would like to have an additional lawn sign because they have two entrances off of 15 Mile Road and one entrance off of Gratiot Avenue. He noted that they are only permitted one lawn sign under current ordinance requirements.

Annette Rodgers, Harlan Laws Corporation, 304 Muldee Street, Durham, North Carolina 27704, representative from the sign company, stated she just got into town and made a site visit prior to coming to tonight’s meeting. She stressed that they need a larger sign because it is difficult for motorists traveling north on Gratiot to see. It is blocked by trees, a light pole, a utility pole that are all situated directly in front of the sign. She did not feel that an 18-foot-high sign would be seen until it was too late for the motorist to safely maneuver his vehicle into the proper lane to gain access to the site. She felt a safety problem could result. She felt that Lowe’s will be the "cornerstone" of the Regional Shopping Center and will attract other businesses as well. She stated that they are also in need of signs to properly convey traffic patterns.

Mr. Lord stated that the proposed signs have worked effectively at other locations throughout the country, although they have yet higher corporate signs available as well.

Ms. Rodgers stated that they stopped at the site and looked at the sign; however, they had to go past several exits on Gratiot to turn around because they missed the site. She complained that the sign cannot be seen because of the trees in the median, as well as the traffic congestion along Gratiot Avenue. She felt it was dangerous to switch lanes once they saw the sign and try to get to the site. She explained that the requested pylon sign is the best sign for Lowe’s because it is taller than most trees and light posts, which aids in safety. Ms. Rodgers acknowledged that there are taller and larger signs in the Township that are grand-fathered.

Mr. Marella explained that the sign ordinance was revised a few years ago and it now states that if a sign is going to be changed significantly, it must comply with the current ordinance requirements.

Ms. Rodgers understood the logic of the revised sign ordinance; however, she emphasized that because of the location of this store, it is very difficult.

Mr. Nickerson felt that what was permitted at the Lowe’s location at Hall and Hayes was sufficient. He noted that they have the same situation with two driveways onto two major thoroughfares. He also noted that they have directional signs on the face of the building. He noted that the corner of the proposed building is only 15 feet from 15 Mile Road so motorists should be able to recognize Lowe’s from that distance. He stated he is opposed to almost all the petitioner is requesting with regards to signs.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the entrances off of 15 Mile Road are split.

Mr. Lord replied that the entrances are split.

Mr. Campbell felt that it is in the interest of public safety to grant additional wall signs because it helps people locate where they want to go and aids in their safety. He explained that the trend now is to lower signs because motorists will be able to see them without looking up and they become more noticeable. He stated the lower signs are favored for safety reasons because the motorists do not have to move their eyes far off the road. Mr. Campbell pointed out that there is a much larger right-of-way at the Hayes/Hall facility. He added that although the traffic on Gratiot Avenue may seem quite congested to someone from out of town, it is relatively light compared to the traffic on Hall Road. He could not see the basis for the requested hardship. He emphasized that this Board has been given very strict criteria for granting variance requests. He felt that one lawn sign between the two entrances off of 15 Mile Road should be sufficient. Mr. Campbell noted that at the Hayes/Hall facility, there is a gas station on the corner that somewhat interferes with visibility; however, the 15 Mile/Gratiot facility does not have any interference because they own right up to the corner. He inquired as to why they need such a large Lowe’s sign.

Mr. Marella felt that once Lowe’s has been constructed and is open to the public, their good reputation is what will bring people to the store. He felt all of the additional requested signs will create a safety issue.

Mr. Lord expressed concern that this Board may deny these variance requests tonight, and he noted that the representative from Lowe’s was not able to be in attendance tonight due to a surgery. He stated he would like to discuss this with a representative from Lowe’s prior to it being denied.

Mr. Marella did not feel it would make a difference to have a representative here from Lowe’s, because he emphasized that the sign ordinance still stands.

Mr. Campbell felt that if the representative from Lowe’s has new information that is not heard tonight, they can request a reconsideration.

Discussion took place regarding whether to deny the request or to table the matter at the representative’s request.

Mr. Nickerson suggested granting the same variances as were granted for the Hall/Hayes facility.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5652 and application from Evan Vlaeminck, Lowe’s Companies, 1952 McDowell Road, Naperville, IL 60563, as represented by Eric Lord, Giffels-Webster Engineers, Inc., 2871 Bond Street, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309-3515, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-A-2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Lawn sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-B-1; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Pylon sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-C-1; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Wall Sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions, concerning 12.88 acres of land located at the northwest corner of 15 Mile Road and Gratiot Avenue (Section 27), that variance be granted to permit installation of three (3) wall signs being one (1) wall sign in excess of the maximum permitted two (2) wall signs, by reason that these signs will promote safety and traffic flow; further, that request for variance to permit installation of two (2) business lawn signs and one (1) business pylon sign for a proposed retail development (Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse) on a parcel of land fronting 15 Mile Road (120-feet right-of-way) and fronting Gratiot Avenue (greater than 120-feet right-of-way) in the B-2 Community Business District, with 1) Two (2) lawn signs each having height of ten (10) feet, each being two (2) feet in excess of the maximum permitted height of eight (8) feet; 2) One (1) pylon sign having display area of 215 square feet being 115 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 100 square feet; 3) One (1) wall sign having display area of 332 square feet being 132 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 200 square feet; and 4) One (1) pylon sign and two (2) lawn signs being one (1) lawn sign in excess of the maximum permitted two (2) lawn or pylon signs, be denied by reason that insufficient hardship or practical difficulty was demonstrated. Discussion ensued.

Mr. Catalano pointed out that the petitioner’s representative has requested that the matter be tabled because the petitioner is not present. He suggested that possibly the petitioner would be able to come up with an alternative to what is being requested tonight, and he inquired as to why this Board is "shutting him out".

Mr. Campbell pointed out that retailers have come before this Board with sign variance requests. He felt that if the petitioner would like to request a reconsideration, that is his option.

Mr. Catalano noted that he has lived in this area for 40 years, and if someone wants to come in and revitalize an area, he felt it is their duty to provide him with encouragement and help.

Considerable discussion took place regarding whether larger signs constitute a revitalization.

Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – Poma, Reynolds, Catalano. Motion failed for lack of votes.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, supported by Mr. Poma, with reference to File #5652 and application from Evan Vlaeminck, Lowe’s Companies, 1952 McDowell Road, Naperville, IL 60563, as represented by Eric Lord, Giffels-Webster Engineers, Inc., 2871 Bond Street, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309-3515, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-A-2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Lawn sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-B-1; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Pylon sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-C-1; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Wall Sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions, concerning 12.88 acres of land located at the northwest corner of 15 Mile Road and Gratiot Avenue (Section 27), that further consideration of variance to permit installation of two (2) business lawn signs, one (1) business pylon sign, and three (3) business wall signs for a proposed retail development (Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse) on a parcel of land fronting 15 Mile Road (120-feet right-of-way) and fronting Gratiot Avenue (greater than 120-feet right-of-way) in the B-2 Community Business District, with 1) Two (2) lawn signs each having height of ten (10) feet, each being two (2) feet in excess of the maximum permitted height of eight (8) feet; 2) One (1) pylon sign having display area of 215 square feet being 115 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 100 square feet; 3) One (1) wall sign having display area of 332 square feet being 132 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 200 square feet; 4) One (1) pylon sign and two (2) lawn signs being one (1) lawn sign in excess of the maximum permitted two (2) lawn or pylon signs; and 5) Three (3) wall signs being one (1) wall sign in excess of the maximum permitted two (2) wall signs, be tabled to the next meeting at the representative’s request to have the petitioner present. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Reynolds, Poma, Catalano, Marella. Nay – Campbell, Nickerson. Motion carried.

The meeting recessed at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 7:59 p.m.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Dale Reece, 23465 Lakewood, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that he has revised his plans to eliminate the need for the majority of variances. He indicated that the homes will have basements and are stick-built, measuring 1,200 square feet each, and they will have covered front porches. He stressed that he worked very hard to "make this development happen", and they have begun construction on four of the five homes. He pointed out that the minimum square footage at the time they applied for permits was 900 square feet, yet they are building 1,200 square-foot homes.

Sharon Taylor, 34163 Vinita, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated when she received this notice of public hearing, she was very concerned about the square footage. She is adjacent to one of the Lakewood Development homes, and she stated she is worried about the value of her home. She built her home in 1978 and had to purchase two 40-foot lots at that time to make it buildable. She stressed she is opposed to any reduction of square footage.

Phillip Williams, 33810 Gates, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, inquired as to whether these houses will have garages.

Mr. Reece replied that garages are not included as a standard item on these homes, although they are options. He pointed out that there is not very much space in the rear yard for a garage.

Mr. Williams inquired as to whether the size of the lot would support a one-car garage.

Mr. Reece assured that a one-car garage would fit in the rear yards.

Mr. Williams inquired as to whether residents will have to park in the street if they have more than one car.

Mr. Reece replied that if they have more than one car, they would have to park in the street, just as the rest of the neighborhood has to do. He pointed out that a lot of the homes in the subdivision have attached garages so they have no vehicle access to the rear yard.

Mr. Williams assured he and his neighbors are not objecting to development of these lots but rather the type of development being proposed.

Mr. Reece emphasized that he has taken the neighbors concerns into consideration and that is why he is constructing stick-built homes with basements.

Iona Means, 34183 Vinita, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, inquired as to why the petitioner cannot combine lots and build on an 80-foot lot rather than trying to "squeeze" homes on small lots.

Mr. Marella pointed out that all the petitioner is requesting is a three-foot variance on one side. He felt that the petitioner has made a 100% improvement since he first approached this Board with variance requests for this lot as well as a few other lots in this area.

Ms. Means agreed with Mr. Marella but felt they should not have to accept "just anything" the petitioner wishes to do.

Mr. Marella pointed out that this is a corner lot with a small width of only 50 feet.

Discussion took place regarding the type of home being built.

Mr. Reece reiterated that the home will be a 1,200-square-foot ranch that is stick-built, with a basement and partial brick.

Mr. Marella reminded that this Board cannot control the type of home Mr. Reece is building, but their responsibility is to listen to the request and make a determination as to whether or not to grant the variance.

Mr. Campbell detailed the problem the petitioner is facing. He noted that this is a 50-foot-wide legally platted lot in a subdivision and the Township cannot deny the owner his right to build a single-family home on the lot of record. According to ordinance requirements, there must be a minimum 3-foot side yard setback from the house to the property line of the adjacent property, the home must be a minimum 24-feet in width, and he must provide a 25-foot setback on the other side because it is a corner property. Adding these numbers together totals 52 feet and the lot only measures 50 feet. Mr. Campbell emphasized that it would not be legally correct of this Board to deny everything regardless of the hardship or practical difficulty. He indicated that if this Board were to deny the petitioner a right to build on his legally platted lot, the Township could be sued, and the Court upholds that people have a right to use their property in the way in which it was intended. He pointed out that the house meets the minimum square footage requirement. He could find no problem with the 3-foot variance request. He inquired as to whether this will have a handicapped ramp to the front door or the rear door.

Mr. Reece replied that they no longer need a handicapped ramp because the gentleman, previously interested in this home for his handicapped wife, no longer wishes to purchase the house due to the recent death of his wife. He replied that the home will have a brick face on the front, with vinyl siding on the sides and back.

Mr. Poma inquired as to whether the entire front of the house will be bricked or whether the brick will only extend halfway up.

Mr. Reece replied that the brick will only extend halfway up because it has a covered porch in the front and he felt it is a nicer appearance with the half brick. He assured money is not an issue because full brick is only $500 more, but it is a matter of aesthetics.

Ms. Sheridan estimated that they will be able to accommodate two cars in the driveway; however, she informed that the driveway is required to measure ten feet in width.

Mr. Reece replied to inquiry that the petitioner eventually wants to put the garage on the side and have the driveway off of Kentucky. He assured that he has no objection to installing a 10-foot-wide driveway. Mr. Reece also agreed to but brick halfway up all around the house because it is on a corner.

Motion by Mr. Marella, supported by Mr. Poma, with reference to File #5646 and application from Dale Reece, Lakewood Development, 23465 Lakewood, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01 and 1292.01-c; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart: Minimum Front, Side and Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 65, Southern Park Subdivision (Section 35), generally located at the northwest corner of Quinn Road and Kentucky, that variance be granted to permit construction of a single-family residence on a corner lot in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with: 1) Side yard setback from Kentucky Avenue of 21.39 feet being 3.61 feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; and 2) Rear yard setback of 34.73 feet being 0.27 feet less than the minimum required thirty-five (35) feet; further, this variance is granted contingent on the petitioner: 1) installing a minimum 10-foot-wide driveway; and 2) constructing the house with the brick front halfway up and following the same brick-line on all four sides; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the lot is a platted corner lot with a narrow width; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Discussion ensued.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to why this Board would require the house to have brick on all four sides and what that has to do with the requested setback variance. He pointed out that there are many homes in the Township that are very expensive, yet do not have brick on all four sides. He inquired as to why a certain area of the Township is being singled out to require brick homes when vinyl-sided homes are allowed in other areas of the Township.

Mr. Catalano pointed out that the petitioner has the right to construct a house with all brick or no brick; however, when he comes to the Board of Appeals for a variance request, this Board has the authority to grant a variance with conditions placed on that approval. He noted that the neighbors live on 80-foot lots and they are concerned about the value of their homes. He felt that a brick-line halfway up all the way around the house will help the value of the surrounding homes.

Mr. Campbell stated that his own home is worth approximately $200,000 and he has face brick on the front and no brick around the rest of the house. He failed to see where the brick issue has anything to do with the variance request, and he objected to including it as a condition of the grant of variance.

Mr. Reece replied to inquiry that he does not want to put brick on four sides of his house, but he agreed to it if it is required by this Board.

Roll Call Vote: Aye – Marella, Poma, Reynolds, Catalano, Nickerson. Nay – Campbell. Absent – Trombley. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Brent Anderson, Father and Son Construction Company, 5032 Rochester Road, Troy, Michigan 48098, explained that they are requesting a front yard setback variance. He noted that the lot is 40 feet in width, and the petitioner’s family is growing, so they are adding on a dormer and need additional space on the first floor as well. He pointed out that they have a septic tank and field in the rear yard so they are forced to add on in the front of the house.

George Mussall, 36080 Moravian Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, explained that his grandfather built this house in 1942 and he was raised on this property. He stressed that he does not want to move out of this house or this neighborhood, and he would like to bring his house up to the standards of the neighbors’ homes. Mr. Mussall informed that his father is his neighbor, and his father’s house sets 12 feet closer to the front lot line than his house so he did not feel this variance would be a detriment to the area.

Mrs. Mussall, same address, explained that they have lived in Clinton Township all of their lives and their children are starting school. She noted that she works four miles away and the school is two miles, and she does not want to move. This is why they are proposing to add on to their house.

Mr. Mussall clarified that the neighbor to the east is his father, and between the subject parcel and the neighbor to the west is a 450-foot vacant field.

Mr. Nickerson stated he asked Mr. Santia if there are any plans to expand Moravian Drive and was advised that it would be long range, if at all. In fact, he indicated the road right-of-way may be reduced from 120 feet to 86 feet. He did not have any objection to the variance request.

Mr. Mussall replied to inquiry that they are expanding up because they have two children. He replied to further inquiry that their kitchen measures 9 feet by 12 feet. He noted that the house was small but it has gotten smaller since there was an outhouse when it was built and they have since had to add indoor plumbing.

Mr. Campbell agreed with Mr. Nickerson. He stated they have a unique factor in that the road right-of-way will most likely be reduced. He recalled that this Board has never given a front yard setback variance of this size, and it is an expansion of a non-conforming structure, which he felt is treading in a dangerous area; however, he would be in support of a grant of variance because it is unlikely that Moravian would ever come within 25 feet of the existing house.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5647 and application from George Mussall, 36080 Moravian Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Father & Son Construction, 5032 Rochester Road, Troy, Michigan 48098, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements for the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lots 5 and 6, Superhighway City Subdivision (Section 30), generally located fronting the south line of Moravian Drive, west of Miami at 36080 Moravian Drive, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with front yard setback of 12.3 feet being 12.7 feet less than the minimum required setback of twenty-five (25) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the septic system is located in the rear yard so the house cannot be expanded to the rear, and further, that it is more likely than not that the 120-foot road right-of-way will be reduced to 86 feet in the future and if this is the case, they will meet the minimum required front yard setback; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Reynolds, Poma, Campbell, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Trombley. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Tom Twydell, T. J. Twydell Sign Professionals, Inc., P. O. Box 81671, Rochester, Michigan 48063, stated they are trying to abide by the ordinance but due to the uniqueness, size and shape of the lot, they will have a 17 Mile Road entrance, which will not be identifiable by driving by. He stressed that they would like a sign at this entrance. He also noted that the 7-Eleven is situated on the corner and their property wraps around that site; as a result, they lack visibility. To the east, there is a building located in close proximity to their building, and he felt that customers coming off of 17 Mile Road will need identification of the entrance. They are also proposing a wall sign on the wall facing 17 Mile Road indicating "WB" that will identify the bank. They are requesting these variances to identify their location and maintain the corporate look. Mr. Twydell informed that the clock tower is non-illuminated and the letters are as small as possible, while still being legible. He emphasized that they do not need any setback, size or height variances but are only requesting what they feel is proper identification for the benefit of the community.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the sign on 17 Mile Road will be smaller than the sign on Garfield.

Mr. Twydell assured that the 17 Mile Road sign will be smaller.

Mr. Campbell commented that they do not show anything on their drawings indicating size.

Ms. Sheridan replied that the proposed lawn sign will be eight feet in height, with a 100-square-foot display area. She replied to further inquiry that under ordinance requirements, a lawn sign is allowed a larger display area than a pylon sign.

Mr. Campbell felt the signage on 17 Mile Road is a good idea, considering that there is another business situated on the corner and the bank has frontage on two roads. He clarified that they are proposing four wall signs on the clock tower, one wall sign on the east side of the building and one on the west.

Mr. Twydell assured that the proposed wall sign on the east side of the building is only the "WB" logo. He replied to inquiry that the size of the wall sign on the west is 25.9 square feet.

Mr. Campbell commented that they are requesting a large number of signs, although he could understand what they were doing with the clock tower. He recalled in the past that in some instances, the total square footage of all the signs is still less than the maximum square footage permitted.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that there is a maximum 40 square feet permitted for a wall sign in the OS-1 Office/Service (Low-Rise) District.

Mr. Campbell added the square footage of the five proposed wall signs, and the total came to approximately 32 feet.

Mr. Twydell replied that they thought they were in compliance but they discovered the restrictions for signs in the OS-1 District are different than those in a business district.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that the 7-Eleven on the corner is located in an OS District but was allowed there by Consent Judgment.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether the clock tower is visible to motorists entering the parking lot off of 17 Mile Road.

Bob Strelco, Warren Bank [no address given], replied that the clock tower is not visible from the entrance on 17 Mile Road. He pointed out that the sign on the clock tower is non-illuminated and he felt it is a very classy sign.

Ms. Sheridan explained the difficulty she had in determining the variances needed because of the unusual configuration of the clock tower. She noted that a lawn sign does not generally have four faces so she treated it as being similar to a canopy sign. According to the ordinance, a canopy is a separate structure and any lettering and/or logos on the canopy are considered wall signs.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Poma, with reference to File #5648 and application from Damian S. Kassab, Warren Bank, 38880 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(5); Definitions and Restrictions: "Business Sign", concerning 3.012 acres of land fronting the east line of Garfield Road, south of 17 Mile Road (Section 28), that variance be granted to permit installation of two (2) business lawn signs and six (6) business wall signs for a bank (Warren Bank) in the OS-1 Office/Service (Low-Rise) District being one (1) lawn sign and five (5) wall signs in excess of the maximum permitted one (1) lawn sign and one (1) wall sign; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed hardship that the facility has two entrances from major thoroughfares and the entrance on 17 Mile Road is not readily apparent, and further, the number of signs, when the total square footage is added together, does not exceed ordinance requirements for total square footage permitted; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Poma, Reynolds, Catalano, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Trombley. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Steve Elliott, 1501 Brides Drive, explained that they are attempting to create a destination for people. They are even including a "Wolverine Den" for cigar smokers. He replied to inquiry that the ladder for the tower does not extend all the way down to the ground. He replied to further inquiry that the distance of the ladder from the ground can be determined by the Township.

Mr. Nickerson commented that according to the sketch they received, the ladder extends to the ground. He explained that when he was in law enforcement trying to keep young people from climbing up such structures and spray-painting graffiti, they had the most success keeping people off if there was a minimum distance of twenty feet from the ground to the bottom of the ladder.

Mr. Poma agreed and stated he has watched movies where people become intoxicated and attempt to climb these ladders, only to fall off. He inquired as to whether there will be any type of fencing around the tower.

Mr. Elliott replied that they have no plans for any fence.

Mr. Nickerson stated he has a problem with the distraction that anything this large will create for motorists. He felt it could be a hazard and he would be opposed to anything that takes the drivers’ attention away from the road.

Mr. Poma inquired as to the proposed use of the water tower.

Mr. Elliottt replied that it will be "just for looks".

Mr. Poma inquired as to whether there will be a beacon on top, being it is fairly close proximity to Selfridge Air Base.

Mr. Elliott relayed that they discussed this with representatives from Selfridge, and they have no problem with it.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether this would be considered an accessory structure if the lettering were removed.

Ms. Sheridan stated that without the lettering, it could be an accessory structure; however, it would still exceed the ordinance requirements for the maximum height of an accessory structure by ten feet.

Mr. Campbell observed that there seems to be a fad to go back to "retro" structures in order to create a uniqueness; however, this places a difficulty on the Township in determining what variances are needed. He cited the previous case of the clock tower at the Warren Bank and the McDonald’s Restaurant on Hall Road as being examples of signage that are unique. He cautioned that the Township must guard against a look that resembles a carnival atmosphere in the developer’s attempt to create a unique look; however, he supports the concept of a water tower but without the lettering. He added that without the lettering, it could be considered as an accessory structure. He pointed out that the petitioner would still have the look he is achieving and could advertise his establishment as being "at the water tower".

Mr. Poma inquired as to whether the petitioner would be willing to change the "Harley Davidson" lettering to "Clinton Township".

Mr. Elliott stated he will do whatever is requested to gain approval.

Discussion took place regarding the height of the ladder from the ground. It was noted that the ladders only has to be accessible from the Fire Department’s bucket truck, so it can be raised.

Mr. Nickerson felt Mr. Campbell came up with a good compromise. He pointed out that if he removes the lettering, reduces the height of the tower by ten feet to a total height of thirty-five feet, and this is considered an acceptable accessory structure, he will not need a variance.

Mr. Elliott stated he would be willing to follow the wishes of this Board and requested to withdraw his petition.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Marella, with reference to File #5650 and application from Charles Riley, Riley Properties, 1625 South Gratiot, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Stephen P. Elliott, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-A-2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Lawn sign", concerning Lots 17 through 20, North Gratiot Heights Subdivision (Section 1), that this Board accept the petitioner’s request to withdraw his request to permit installation of a business lawn sign for a proposed motorcycle dealership (Wolverine Harley Davidson) in the B-3 General Business District with height of forty-five (45) feet being thirty-seven (37) feet in excess of the maximum permitted height of eight (8) feet. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Marella, Catalano, Nickerson, Poma, Reynolds. Nay – None. Absent – Trombley. Motion carried.

Mr. Catalano recalled that this Board granted a variance for Parkway Beverage; however, he inquired as to whether this is now a bar/restaurant. He noted that their primary wall sign advertises "Liquor – Pizza – Grill".

Ms. Sheridan agreed with Mr. Catalano and stated that she could not believe it when she drove by the site and observed the sign. She noted that they had to obtain a parking variance to permit a retail store, and there definitely is not sufficient parking for a restaurant. She replied to inquiry that the site development plan they submitted does not indicate any type of sit-down or carry-out restaurant service.

Mr. Marella felt this is up to the Ordinance Enforcement Division to handle.

Mr. Campbell explained that the Building Department will take a written or faxed complaint. He also suggested to Mr. Catalano that he could go in person to the Building Department to file a complaint.

Ms. Sheridan suggested they look at the floor plan submitted as she would be curious as to whether it matched what was submitted to the Planning Department. She felt this was a misrepresentation to both the Planning and Building Departments.

Mr. Marella expressed disappointment because he noted this board "bent over backwards" to help the petitioner with the variance because they would like to see that corner "cleaned up".

Mr. Santia offered to send a letter from the Planning Department to the Building Department, requesting them to look at the site for ordinance/site plan compliance.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to approve the report of the May 15, 2002 Meeting as revised. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, supported by Mr. Poma, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS